Attack and Defense VS 1 Number

[Ahriman]

Factors that influence combat should be REALISTICALLY modelled in the game, that´s what I´m saying.

Yes, that's what you're saying.
And it's why you're wrong. The goal here is to make a warfare system that is fun, streamlined and has interesting tactical and strategic decisions to make.

Not to try to simulate all the real factors that go into combat.

Again, if you want those kinds of details, go look for an actual wargame.

 

[Jopo]

I´ve played numerous games, strategy games, tactical wargames, first-person shooters, city-building games, adventure games, role-playing games, shoot-em-ups, real-time strategies, all the types.

I´ve played Civilization since Civ 1 back in the day and Civilization is a CLASSIC in its own right and I plan to keep following Civ in EVERY new episode of the series.

My idea of a BETTER Civilization is to combine some great ideas from different games to one great strategy game that meets the needs of ALL who play it.

If you want to play peacefully, then there should be plenty of building and research to do, you can add new technologies by modding and buildings and wonders too, so that´s not a problem, the peaceful players have their needs met plenty.

For wargamers, the Civilization needs to do some work still, I think.

I like a game where decisions are COMPLEX, you REALLY need to THINK your moves and consider all aspects of combat before launching an attack and simple realism does that more than adequately.

The question is, ARE WE MAKING A GAME FOR 12 year olds or grownups? For a 12 year old war can be fun and it´s enough to see some nice graphics of men bashing each other with clubs and screaming AARGH when they die. Also in that sort of a game it is enough to have just one value to compare, "my sword is bigger than yours" or "I have more strength points than you do", but realism is not important then.

If however you want to make a SERIOUS game about HISTORY, then you MUST have REALISM and realism can be fun too, if you enjoy making complex decisions and thinking your moves, because with a realistic system you can´t go to war with an army that has poor morale or is plagued by disease, these are all REAL LIFE examples of what REAL armies faced in the past and face today.

As I´ve said, the learning curve for multiple values is NOT any tougher than with one value, because all you have to remember are the common sense lessons that history has taught many times or did everybody just sleep in the history class?

Strategy games are often about history and usually they aim for REALISM, decisions should be governed by factors that affected people in any given period of history.

Disease, hunger, desertion, poor morale, weather (you can´t shoot a musket in the rain, you can only fight when it´s sunny), skill, organization, terrain, all of these aspects affect military decisions in REAL LIFE and if you want to make a SERIOUS STRATEGY GAME, you must include all these aspects into the system SOMEHOW, I don´t care if it is one value with modifiers, promotions etc. or a collection of different values, all I want is for the system to be as realistic as possible and I for one think REALISM IS MORE FUN, realism doesn´t make the game dull or reduce anything from the funny parts of the game, if you want a laugh, you can still have it with a realistic system, the question is WHAT IS THE ASPECT THAT YOU LAUGH AT in war?

Civilization is a family game, so there´s no blood, no gore, none of the terrible things of war, but when you "nuke" some city, remember that you just burned a million virtual souls to a nice crisp, remember that in the back of your head when you laugh.

So, I ask you Ahriman and all the rest, what is your VISION for a better combat system? SHould there be just one value or several and what values should be represented and what NOT? If you aim for realism then you must represent ALL of them somehow or are you perhaps taking a tongue-in-cheek approach to warfare like C&C series and Red Alert, fun games, I´ve played them aswell.

One of my solutions would be to make the combat system FULLY MODDABLE, so everybody can make their own versions of the combat system with different values, how about that? Just code the combat system values etc. in XML or Python and make it open for modding, I say, that should please ALL.

Is it FUN vs. REALISM or can the game be BOTH, fun AND realistic? I say it can be BOTH. Share your visions so everybody can understand you.

Cheers!

 

[Ahriman]

My idea of a BETTER Civilization is to combine some great ideas from different games to one great strategy game that meets the needs of ALL who play it.

See, this is an inherently flawed proposition. Because the needs of many who play it are for a simple, streamlined, elegantly designed game.

You cannot meet the needs of most players simply by throwing in every feature you liked from every game you ever played.

If you do that, you end up not with a game that pleases everyone, but with a game that pleases almost no-one.

The question is, ARE WE MAKING A GAME FOR 12 year olds or grownups?

No, it really isn't. Preferring a game to be streamlined, and not get bogged down in details, in no way makes the game juvenile or simplistic.
The rules of chess are very simple and there are very few mechanisc, but that doesn't make it a kid's game.

I like a game where decisions are COMPLEX, you REALLY need to THINK your moves and consider all aspects of combat before launching an attack and simple realism does that more than adequately

Complexity of tactical options can be achieved without large numbers of complex mechanics.

all of these aspects affect military decisions in REAL LIFE and if you want to make a SERIOUS STRATEGY GAME, you must include all these aspects into the system SOMEHOW,

That's just not true. Your logic is flawed, and your definition of a "serious strategy game" is idiosyncratic. Where is it written that a "serious strategy game" must be a detailed reality simulator?
Again, Chess.

So, I ask you Ahriman and all the rest, what is your VISION for a better combat system?

Here is how I would do combat.
I would have 1upt. I would have a single strength value for each unit (which determines the probability of winning each round - and each combat has 4 rounds), and a hit point total. I would have the possibility for Civ4 type modifiers where units could get bonuses against particular unit classes (eg spearman vs cavalry), while defending, while attacking cities, and so forth.
I would have it take, on average, ~7 successful rounds of combat (ie ~3.5 turns of fighting for equal strength units) for a unit to be killed completely.
I would have weak support units that could use bombardment attacks, but frontline units would only be able to attack each other directly from adjacent tiles. Bomabrdment attacks would have fairly short range (2-3 tiles max).
Non-support ranged units (gunpowder units) could have first strikes; a first strike would be similar to Civ4, except even more meaningful because each combat only has 4 rounds. Net first strikes would be all that mattered. Thus, if a unit with 1 first strike attacked a unit with 2 first strikes, the defending unit would get 1 first strike round and then there would be 3 combat rounds as normal.

Units would be more expensive than in Civ4, but maintenance costs per unit would be higher than Civ4.

Units would have higher maintenance costs outside friendly territory. Maintenance would just be in gold.

Some "superior" units would require specialist resources, like horses, iron, etc. and a finite number of units would be buildable per resource.
More generic weaker levy type units would have no resource requirements.

Units would have promtions that gave veterancy strength and specializations, as in Civ4.

Terrain would have similar effects to Civ4, but would be much more significant because of 1upt.

So; basically take the Civ4 system, adapt it to 1upt and non-instant fatality (a hit point system), but keep the design simple.

 

[Jopo]

Ok, Ahriman, I can see where you´re coming from. You like games to be elegant and simple, like chess, which is the king of strategy games and reserved for those with high brain volumes.

Here´s my proposition which takes your consideration into account and keeps the amount of different values to a minimum.

My desire is to reflect history as realistically and faithfully as possible.

Combat in my view can be divided into eras, there is the MELEE ERA, that is from earliest ancient warfare to about 1500´s or 1600´s, when muskets started appearing en masse, early muskets were clumsy and slow to fire and needed to be escorted by spearmen, that is melee units, that is where the famous Spanish Tercio formation comes from, musketmen escorted and protected by spearmen (there´s another Spanish unique unit, a musketman with a +50% bonus against cavalry due to the spearmen, the Tercio). The Tercio ruled warfare in Europe at the height of the Spanish empireand was replaced as a tactic by advances in weapons technology.

After the development better muskets and the bayonet, which made a musket into a part-time spear, the musketmen were able to protect themselves against cavalry and came to their own, from this the age of the firearm begins and muskets were the basic from 1600´s up until after the US Civil War in 1860´s after which warfare was revolutionized by breech loading rifles and increasing firepower.

In the age of the musket the standard tactic was to march large numbers of men in close formations to increase firepower, you simply made a man into a marching musket, all he needed to know was how to fire and load a musket and how to stay in line. This is the time of linear tactics, lines of musketmen firing at each other at close range followed by a melee assault with bayonets.

Paradox Interactive, makers of map-based strategy games based on history, use MORALE as the basic combat value for their games of the ancient Roman times and for Europa Universalis series which is set in 1419-1820, the era of the musket.

Units have morale and do SHOCK DAMAGE (a melee charge or a cavalry charge causes shock damage, SHOCK is a promotion in Civ 4) to each other shaking each others morale until the loser withdraws, armies are seldom destroyed, they take casualties and battles are lost, but they are seldom completely destroyed.

What decides wars in Europa universalis is MANPOWER, each nation produces manpower according to it´s population, manpower means how many soldiers there are available for recruitment at any time, your nations manpower pool, a small nation cannot support an army of millions like realistically, armies need a continuous flow of manpower to resupply their ranks for casualties and retirements, hence you must have a large population to support a large army, in a small population there simply isn´t enough fit men to supply the ranks and you cannot conscript every last one, you need men to work the farms etc.

I propose adding MANPOWER to Civilization, every population point produces manpower points and units require manpower to resupply and heal, hence you can lose a war by having your nation bled dry, your units cannot heal because you´ve run out of manpower.

In addition MORALE would be added to the combat system as a new value. This is because morale shifts over time and is affected by several things in a civilization.
In combat the computer throws TWO sets of dice every combat turn, one dice for melee or firearm damage to hitpoints and a second dice for MORALE DAMAGE or SHOCK. If morale runs out the unit withdraws, so you can win a battle in two ways, by destroying the unit physically by reducing its hitpoints to zero or by forcing it to withdraw by reducing its morale to zero.

This would reflect history very accurately and would keep the amount of values to a minimum of TWO. MORALE and STRENGTH

ORGANIZATION can be merged with MORALE and STRENGTH, poor organization reflects in lower attack and defence strength.

DISCIPLINE is a modifier to MORALE or can be merged with it, for example discipline affects how fast unit loses morale in combat or so.

LOYALTY affects on a strategic level and can be simulated by units turning barbarian if they are not paid.

MORALE can also be simulated using just one value, by using withdrawal as a tool, all units begin with a high withdrawal chance, they have poor morale and will break easily, promotions REDUCE the withdrawal chance, making the unit hold its ground better.

I would also add COMBAT EVENTS to Civilization, random events that affect combat, in combat there is a chance every combat turn that a combat event occurs, reflecting a changing battlefield, tactics, random elements, etc., for example, combat begins and suddenly there is a combat event "tenacious defence", the defender gets a +100% bonus decimating the attacker. Combat events are used in Paradox´s games and the old Panzer General series which has inspired makers of Civ 5, for example the hex grid is inspired by Panzer General.

So basically, you CAN simulate morale with just one value, just use the withdrawal in a different way.
MANPOWER would place a cap to how much units can heal, you cannot heal if you don´t have manpower points available, that would solve the problem of all units just withdrawing and not getting killed, eventually they begin to die because the opponent has run out of manpower and cannot resupply his/her army.

There´s my proposal.

Cheers!

PS. I would keep stacking, Panzer General had one unit per tile and it had problems with roads getting clogged and units not reaching frontlines, hopefully it is possible to mod stacking back into the game later on since they have decided to drop it.
Also, I would make the combat system fully moddable so everyone can create their own system.

 

[boredatwork]

PS. I would keep stacking, Panzer General had one unit per tile and it had problems with roads getting clogged and units not reaching frontlines, hopefully it is possible to mod stacking back into the game later on since they have decided to drop it.

...a person arguing for realism complaining because his roads are clogged...

 

[Jopo]

Getting clogged roads IS realistic, but it is unfortunate that for example in Panzer General you could not get past a unit, high priority units could not get past other units to the front where they were needed, in real life it is possible to get past others, for example ambulances and other emergency vehicles can move even in a traffic jam, because others give way to them.

Besides where is the realism in 1 unit per tile? A large piece of land like one tile or one hex could easily fit several divisions. In any case aircraft carriers etc. will have stacking even in Civ 5, so its just a matter of modding it back to other units aswell.

It´s a question of taste and you can´t argue about taste.
I like stacking and others like 1 unit per tile, hopefully there can be mods to suit both needs.

Cheers!

 

[Ahriman]

Getting clogged roads IS realistic, but it is unfortunate that for example in Panzer General you could not get past a unit

Its just amusing that you demand REALISM, but accept abstractions that improve gameplay in particular cases.

for example ambulances and other emergency vehicles can move even in a traffic jam, because others give way to them.

You've clearly never seen a big city traffic jam...
When there is gridlock *nothing* can get past.

Similarly, during WW2 there were massive congestion issues. Along a line of advance there is often only a single narrow road, with ditches on either side. So trying to say get one division to pass another caused huge messes.
Let alone all the congestion from transport.

I like stacking and others like 1 unit per tile, hopefully there can be mods to suit both needs.

This really isn't going to be possible. At least not easily. The entire AI and combat system is designed around 1upt. Its not just a matter of tweaking a parameter value that sets stacking limits - well, you could do that, but the AI would be confused and the combat system would suck.

You need to get used to the idea that Civ5 is going to be something different, and its going to use a 1upt system.
It might be that its not the game you're looking for - which is sad for you.
But its not going to be easily changed.

Oh and also:

I would also add COMBAT EVENTS to Civilization, random events that affect combat, in combat there is a chance every combat turn that a combat event occurs, reflecting a changing battlefield, tactics, random elements, etc., for example, combat begins and suddenly there is a combat event "tenacious defence", the defender gets a +100% bonus decimating the attacker.

There is already randomness in the combat engine; there is a probability that each unit wins a round of combat. There's no need to add particular "events" to change outcomes; that's built in.
Also, combat needs to be at least reasonably predictable in a probabilistic sense. Suddenly giving a defender a massive advantage out of nowhere from some external "event" that decimates the attacker isn't really fun.

 

[Jopo]

You´re quite right, I haven´t seen a REAL big city traffic jam, but even then I would presume people are educated enough when getting their drivers license, that when you see flashing lights behind you, you move to the side of the road to let them by and there should be enough space on the road to accommodate such a passing.

I already said, Combat is chaotic, when the battle begins, all plans and predictions go out the window, you can rely on the fact that you might have better armed units and generally higher values, but nonetheless, unexpected things happen on a battlefield and that is just part of the role of the strategic decision maker, to NOT know the outcome with any certainty until the battle is over.
You think Lincoln was nervous about the outcome of Gettysburg, when the battle was still ongoing, what if south had won? Lee could have been in Washington on a very short notice and the administration would have had to flee up north somewhere. Would capturing Washington have made any difference in the end or would Lincoln have just capitulated after the Capitol was in southern hands, who knows?
My point with COMBAT EVENTS is that they would simulate different TACTICS, RANDOM OCCURRENCES ETC. Tactics and decisions that field commanders make independent of the top command. Sometimes you could have a crack division commanded by a complete moron and consequently lose the battle, unpredictable things like that. TACTICS and their effects need to be simulated SOMEHOW, sometimes you can have a brilliant tactician as a division commander and sometimes not. Sometimes a cavalry charge might be repelled by the defenders tactics, sometimes not.
Combat events were used in Panzer General and if the makers of Civ 5 are using it as an inspiration, perhaps we´ll have those too, I say it would be a good thing. The "tenacious defence" combat event was infuriating in PG from an offensive point of view, but for a defender it was a godsend.

I fail to see what the problem is with the AI, aircraft carriers will use stacking and if they´re smart they´ll put stacking in the game to allow units to move past each other more fluidly. The 1upt limit feels like its put there to ARTIFICIALLY lower the unit count in the game, because its a 32-bit game and if there are too many units the game will crash due to a Memory Allocation Failure. It seems that in any case it might be until Civilization 6, five years from now by the looks of it, that we´ll get something of a better Civ. By then at least people will have updated their machines to a 64-bit standard and hopefully they´ll see that there´s absolutely no need to limit the amount of units in a tile to one, it´s unrealistic and unnecessary and having stacks is more fun.

Cheers!

 

[Ahriman]

TACTICS and their effects need to be simulated SOMEHOW, sometimes you can have a brilliant tactician as a division commander and sometimes not. Sometimes a cavalry charge might be repelled by the defenders tactics, sometimes not.

Look at Civ4. It displays combat odds. Victory is not certain, even with superior odds; sometimes a weak unit beats a strong one.

Combat is already random in the game - and has been since Civ1.

So this kind of thing is already being represented.

There is no need to create *another* layer of randomness in combat, partciularly one with wild swings in probability.

and if they´re smart they´ll put stacking in the game to allow units to move past each other more fluidly

You will not be able to stack 2 land units in the same tile, or 2 warships. This has been clearly stated. 2 units in adjacent tiles can swap positions. And a unit in one tile can move "through" another unit as long as it ends its action in an empty tile. But these are not stacking.

I fail to see what the problem is with the AI,

Then I would suggest you don't know very much about how AI works.
The AI in Civ4 will be designed in such a way as to understand a 1upt system. It won't *try* to stack land units in the same tile because it doesn't know that you can.
The AI will be programmed to use tactics that make sense in a 1upt system - like building a defensive front-line of shock units, with support units behind, and cavalry flanking around the edges - that will not be good tactics in a stacking system.

Think of an AI designed to play chess. Even if you hacked your game of chess so that you could have 2 pieces in the same tile, the AI wouldn't know that you had done so.

The 1upt limit feels like its put there to ARTIFICIALLY lower the unit count in the game, because its a 32-bit game and if there are too many units the game will crash due to a Memory Allocation Failure.

Not at all.
The 1 upt limit is there to:
a) Pull units out of cities, so that warfare happens in field battles
b) Remove the ridiculous penalty to the attacker, where the defender always manages to defend with the best defensive unit perfectly suited to the task - so the horsemen will always charge pikemen from the front, and heavy infantry will slowly waddle towards crossbowmen mowing them down.
c) Make terrain and tactical positioning much more important
d) Have WW1/WW2/Panzer General style "fronts" of warfare
Just for starters.

Its nothing to do with system requirements.

and hopefully they´ll see that there´s absolutely no need to limit the amount of units in a tile to one, it´s unrealistic and unnecessary

You might find your life happier if you accept the inevitable. This design decision has already been made. They're not changing it.

 

[Jopo]

"Might find my life happier" ??!! I´m tempted to say PUNK, but I´m not gonna, because I don´t know your age, you might be older than I am, but if you are younger than I am, then with what expertise and experience, giving that much leeway that with those qualities you MIGHT actually be able to tell someone what makes them happier, do you start telling me what makes me happy or happier?

Do you even know what would make yourself happy in life or are you still just a kid looking for your own direction, if that is the case then you should definetely NOT begin to advice others until you´ve got your own things sorted out.

I´ll give enough leeway for the fact that even a kid can know a lot, it´s the teacher ethos, you have to give kids and youngsters respect and encouragement to foster better growth.

In the end, what makes anyone happy is a matter of taste and you simply CANNOT argue about taste or can you, that can be open to debate and I know how much Americans love to debate, the question is just, is the debate a competitive "duel-to the death" or a cooperative effort to reach a common consensus.

To get back to the topic, I´ve played 1upt games before and I can manage Civ5 aswell, AS LONG AS ITS WELL DONE, and well done means PANZER GENERAL to me, as long as they stay faithful to that model they´re fine.

Panzer General model brings in new concepts that are realistic and fun, like SUPPORT FIRE, when a unit is attacked, ALL artillery units within range fire in support of that unit, decimating the attacker, the artillery can fire one or two times per turn in support to limit the defencive power of it, in PG it was influenced by AMMO, the artillery could fire as long as they had ammo, but no longer.
AIR SUPPORT is another concept, you could order an aircraft to hover over an area and the aircraft would strike in support of either attack or defence.
In addition artillery units MUST have ranges of up to 5 hex or more away to be effective from the rear and to destroy enemy artillery, in addition artillery can fire COUNTER-BATTERY FIRE, that is if an artillery unit strikes, another artillery unit can fire at it automatically in retaliation and to suppress it.

In addition the movement points of all units have to be increased. They already will be increased to a minimum of 2, but that´s not enough I say, it has to be at least 6 or 8 points minimum for infantry units and more for cavalry etc.

But the main point of this thread is, should there be more than one value? Yes, HITPOINTS, STRENGTH and HITPOINTS at minimum.

Then you can have something from PG, OVERSTRENGTHENING, you can make your units overstrength, that is if the normal hitpoints value is 10, you can make it 15 or 20. Of course larger units do more damage, so HITPOINTS and STRENGTH are connected, hitpoints determine how many times a unit throws the attack dice or so, the more hitpoints your unit has the stronger you are. Of course you can have promotions like "firepower" or "tenacious defence" that double the amount of attack dice thrown per hitpoint or "weigh" the attack dice to give more etc., increasing the units power remarkably.

There are many things you could do and with modding, EVERYONE gets what they want, life doesn´t HAVE TO BE a competition with winners and losers, there´s a better way, it´s called SOCIAL EQUALITY, some may call it socialism and if that´s what it is, then I´m all for it, SOCIAL EQUALITY FOR ALL.
Here in Europe we´ve had Social Democracy for ages and we´ve got comparable or BETTER systems than the US, Free education for all including university and higher levels. Could the US have a similar system? Of course they could, they can afford it if they want to, the question is just, do they WANT to provide good education for all?
At present, the army is probably the best way to get an education for the poor, you serve a couple of years and you get a scholarship, service guarantees education, service guarantees a better future, but not all go to the army, what about those, how do you provide for those?


Cheers!

 

[Ahriman]

do you start telling me what makes me happy or happier?

I didn't say what makes you happy. I didn't say you should *like* 1upt.
I said, you might be happier if you accept that this design decision has been made. Maybe you won't. But Civ5 isn't going to have the kind of detailed realism mechanics that it seems you're looking for.

1upt is happening whether you like it or not. If you don't, then you might (again, might) be happier sticking with Civ4.

I'm 29, fwiw, and happy.

There are many things you could do and with modding, EVERYONE gets what they want, life doesn´t HAVE TO BE a competition with winners and losers, there´s a better way, it´s called SOCIAL EQUALITY, some may call it socialism and if that´s what it is, then I´m all for it, SOCIAL EQUALITY FOR ALL.
Here in Europe we´ve had Social Democracy for ages and we´ve got comparable or BETTER systems than the US, Free education for all including university and higher levels. Could the US have a similar system? Of course they could, they can afford it if they want to, the question is just, do they WANT to provide good education for all?
At present, the army is probably the best way to get an education for the poor, you serve a couple of years and you get a scholarship, service guarantees education, service guarantees a better future, but not all go to the army, what about those, how do you provide for those?

Woaahh.... WTH?
Seriously dude, get a grip.
a) I'm not American. I just live here (and I vote in New Zealand). And you don't know anything about my politics.
b) What does game design have to do with social democracy?
c) This isn't a democracy. Firaxis design a game. You get to buy it, or not. If you buy it, you get to mod it.
d) In game design you *can't* have something that necessarily pleases everything because, as you rightly say, tastes differ. The game that pleases you is something I would probably hate. Some some things are easy to mod, while others aren't. Designing an entirely new combat system and AI that can use it is at the very hardest end of the spectrum.

 

[Jopo]

Social Democracy doesn´t have anything to do with game design, I just raised the topic of social equality for discussion, but that´s off topic for this thread. This thread is about whether there should be 1 or more values for combat units.

I say there should be at least 2, Strength and Hitpoints, with hitpoints you can have stronger units and weaker units, though granted you can do that with just one value as well.

Having concepts like SUPPORT FIRE etc. is just realism and I think they would fit in the game quite nicely.
Whether you like such new features or not, depends on how you play the game, offensively or defensively, peacefully or aggressively.
If you play offensively, then support fire will be a new challenge, because you need to neutralize the enemy artillery before attacking. If you play defensively, it will give you a new boost in defending.
If you play peacefully, you won´t need much of the military features anyway, but if you do a lot of fighting, then they´re good to have.

I think I can manage 1upt, I just have my reservations about it. Where am I to place all the thousands of units I plan to create when I mod the resource production of all tiles up by several notches and all the hundreds of great persons I plan to place on the map at the start, at least great persons, workers, settlers etc. should be able to stack, for escorting reasons for one and if they´re able to stack, then the AI must know that stacking is possible and be "stacking aware", military units can have 1upt. For reasons of saving space on the map I would keep stacking, but with a "stacking penalty", all units that are stacked get a -50% or so combat minus, so deploying them for combat becomes necessary.

I´ll place all of you a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3va6ISE9IUM
Michio Kaku´s Visions Of The Future, Part 1 Intelligence Revolution

It is quite possible that in our lifetime we will see the Space Elevator go up and the first fusion powerplants built.
Tanks and perhaps men will have armour of incredible strength with buckypaper, a new nanomaterial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckypaper
"Buckypaper is one tenth the weight yet potentially 500 times stronger than steel when its sheets are stacked to form a composite.[1] It could disperse heat like brass or steel and it could conduct electricity like copper or silicon."

Technology promises us an incredible future and with lengthening lifespans, I´ll hopefully be around to see it.

There could be endless discussions about social democracy and social equality etc., but those are off topic for this thread. As for me, I say SOCIAL EQUALITY FOR ALL. Good education, good healthcare etc. available for all. In a modern society there should be no homeless people etc.

Cheers!

 

[deanej]

Strength and hitpoints are what we have now. The unit's strength is multiplied by the unit's hitpoints and divided by 100 to get the strength at any given time.

It is through hitpoints that the spearman vs. tank situation develops. Since combat affects hit points, all it takes is a few lucky rolls. With strength only, it would take a lot longer to wear the tank down.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Strength and hitpoints are what we have now. The unit's strength is multiplied by the unit's hitpoints and divided by 100 to get the strength at any given time.

It is through hitpoints that the spearman vs. tank situation develops. Since combat affects hit points, all it takes is a few lucky rolls. With strength only, it would take a lot longer to wear the tank down.

Which is why the RNG needs to not totally dominate.

Combat should work in such a way that
1. Every combat results in damage for both sides (possible exception due to integers of hp)
2. The amount of damage from a combat is easily predictable and limited in the effect of randomness.

In Civ 1-4, any combat could result in total destruction of a unit, no matter how strong it was compared to the other. Those would affect the Odds but not affect the possibility.

In Civ 5 hopefully Random factors will have a limited range (ie a Strength 20 unit could lose in a series of combats with a Str 10 unit, but not a Str 5 unit) ie the RNG can at best double the 'success level' but not quadruple it.

 

[deanej]

I personally liked civ rev's way of dealing with it (automatic victory if you have greater than 85% odds).

 

[Ahriman]

Strength and hitpoints are what we have now. The unit's strength is multiplied by the unit's hitpoints and divided by 100 to get the strength at any given time.

No, what we have in Civ4 is the opposite; we have only strength. Strength and hit points are the same statistic, so when a unit takes damage it becomes less likely to win a combat round.

Moving to a real strength/hitpoint system would be the opposite of this; the probability of winning a combat round would be based only on relative hitpoints, not on how much damage the unit had taken.

I personally liked civ rev's way of dealing with it (automatic victory if you have greater than 85% odds).

So, if you have 84% odds you have a 16% chance of losing, but if you have 86% odds you have a 0% chance of losing?
Ugh.... that's a horrible and totally arbitrary discontinuity.

 

[Gelvan]

I liked the MoM combat system, where units had points for attack and defense, each point had a chance of 30% to do (or prevent) 1 point of damage, modified by stats like heroic strength and different weapon types. Units had hit points for each soldier in a unit, which meant, that a full unit of spearman (8 soldiers) had 2 hitpoints more than a full unit of swordsman, but the spearman had only 8 times 30% attack chance compared to 18 times 30% atack of a swordsman, compared to 15 times 30% attack of a fire elemental which thereby had much more life for the one fire elemental. ok, this post was maybe a bit complicated, but if you have the manual of MoM somewhere you might want to read it. of course in MoM there have been many more things like petrifying, first strike, resistance against magic and many many spells, but of course that was not a NEW game, but a classic. MoM showed that a more complicated combat has really some nice features. in chess every unit has one health point and one "strength" so every unit can kill every unit. In chess it's not about fighting, but about movement. I would adore a civ style game that has elements of MoM and somehow I AM hopefully that the new 1upt-system could achieve that, even improved, because you won't have to "switch" to tactical combat as in MoM, but it's all there on the map. MoM solved the SoD problem by limiting the number of units to 9 per tile (+ the tactical combat) but maybe the Panzer General approach of civ5 will work even better. maybe some modding is necessary to add more stats.

 

[deanej]

No, what we have in Civ4 is the opposite; we have only strength. Strength and hit points are the same statistic, so when a unit takes damage it becomes less likely to win a combat round.

Hitpoints and strength are two completly different fields in the XML. Firaxis did have each unit have a base of 100 HP, but this could be modded.

 

[Ahriman]

Hitpoints and strength are two completly different fields in the XML. Firaxis did have each unit have a base of 100 HP, but this could be modded.

You can change the base. But you cannot change the fact that damaged units are less likely to win each combat round than full health units. That is hard-coded into the Civ4 combat engine.

It doesn't matter if they're different fields; they are intrinsically tied together.

 

[deanej]

Doesn't it make sense that wounded units would be weaker though?